4 ms·

The author makes some very good points. The British were able to control vast swaths of the world with minimal military power. They fought smart. I remember w

The author makes some very good points. The British were able to control vast swaths of the world with minimal military power. They fought smart. I remember watching Restrepo and other similar documentaries. I come from a tribal culture too; and there were several instances where I could clearly see how the Americans were making a mistake in their dealing with the locals. Those people have been living and dying by their tribal codes for millennia, and "democracy" and "freedom" means nothing to them. Minor nitpick: it was GHW Bush who committed US troops to Somalia, just as he was leaving office, in December 1992; a nice welcoming present for Clinton. Edited: It was pappy Bush, not Dubya. Thanks @theorique :)

theorique 12y ago
Nitpick on the nitpick: George HW Bush (Bush I)
smacktoward 12y ago
The British had their own habit of falling back on technology to cover defects in strategy, though: Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun#Use_in_colonial_warfare_.281884.E2.80.931914.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun#Use_in_colonial_warfa...)
vacri 12y ago
Well, the difference is that the US military is unstoppable against a military foe - the US can fight armies, but they absolutely suck at occupation. They won the Iraq war ('mission accomplished') but the occupation was an absolute disaster, somehow thinking that you can pacify a country through the use of military outposts rather than political nous. All those pithy quotes about getting a soldier to fight by appealing to his soul rather than his wallet (ideas over the physical), these things apply to civilians too - just because you have a military base, doesn't mean they will believe in your ideology. As the article says, if you're not willing to get out amongst the people, you'll never understand them.
rhino369 12y ago
>The British were able to control vast swaths of the world with minimal military power. They fought smart. The world changed. The British and French couldn't control those colonies anymore. Guerrilla insurgencies are very hard to beat. In order to win you either have to convince the people to support you, which is almost impossible as an outsider. Or you make them fear you worse than the insurgency. That is impossible under international law. But if the US really wanted Afghanistan to bend to it's will and didn't care about international law? Just carpet bomb villages that don't support you against the Taliban. Relocate tribes to reservations and resettle your supporters. Why didn't Japan and Germany have insurgencies? They were afraid of what we'd do.
- rodgerd 12y ago
  > The world changed. The British and French couldn't control those colonies anymore. Guerrilla insurgencies are very hard to beat. In the case of Britain, they spent so much on WW I and had barely recovered by WW II. They were literally a fortnight away from having to surrender during WW II. The US played a masterful hand in helping the UK out, and the one of the post-war prices was US pressure to decolonize so the US could expand its sphere of influence. The fact the Britain was also reduced, financially, for relying on ex-colonies like New Zealand and Australia to send free food and pay down its war debts[1] meant that they didn't have much choice. Less a straight military loss - the British had plenty of experience putting down rebellions as brutally as needed, after all - and more having dropped from a superpower to a US client state. France was different, since De Gaulle had preserved a great deal more autonomy for France in the post-WW II era (hence a lot of US hostility). But France was a lot weaker as well, even if it wasn't a US client state. They did, however, hang on to more of their colonies, even in the face of persistent opposition in places like New Caledonia. [1] For sentimental reasons, not particularly well repaid with the manner of the British entry to the EU.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    Part of it was that the US signaled after WWII that it would support Western Europe, but it wouldn't help them colonize the world. The British and French were shocked (and pissed) when the US sided with Egypt and the Soviets against European colonialism. The only reason the British didn't suffer a string of horribly embarrassing loses to insurgencies is because the British just gave up after Suez. They would have had their Indochina and Algeria had they tried to keep it all.

theorique 12y ago

Nitpick on the nitpick: George HW Bush (Bush I)

smacktoward 12y ago

The British had their own habit of falling back on technology to cover defects in strategy, though: Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun#Use_in_colonial_warfare_.281884.E2.80.931914.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun#Use_in_colonial_warfa...)

vacri 12y ago

Well, the difference is that the US military is unstoppable against a military foe - the US can fight armies, but they absolutely suck at occupation. They won the Iraq war ('mission accomplished') but the occupation was an absolute disaster, somehow thinking that you can pacify a country through the use of military outposts rather than political nous. All those pithy quotes about getting a soldier to fight by appealing to his soul rather than his wallet (ideas over the physical), these things apply to civilians too - just because you have a military base, doesn't mean they will believe in your ideology. As the article says, if you're not willing to get out amongst the people, you'll never understand them.

rhino369 12y ago

>The British were able to control vast swaths of the world with minimal military power. They fought smart. The world changed. The British and French couldn't control those colonies anymore. Guerrilla insurgencies are very hard to beat. In order to win you either have to convince the people to support you, which is almost impossible as an outsider. Or you make them fear you worse than the insurgency. That is impossible under international law. But if the US really wanted Afghanistan to bend to it's will and didn't care about international law? Just carpet bomb villages that don't support you against the Taliban. Relocate tribes to reservations and resettle your supporters. Why didn't Japan and Germany have insurgencies? They were afraid of what we'd do.

rodgerd 12y ago
> The world changed. The British and French couldn't control those colonies anymore. Guerrilla insurgencies are very hard to beat. In the case of Britain, they spent so much on WW I and had barely recovered by WW II. They were literally a fortnight away from having to surrender during WW II. The US played a masterful hand in helping the UK out, and the one of the post-war prices was US pressure to decolonize so the US could expand its sphere of influence. The fact the Britain was also reduced, financially, for relying on ex-colonies like New Zealand and Australia to send free food and pay down its war debts[1] meant that they didn't have much choice. Less a straight military loss - the British had plenty of experience putting down rebellions as brutally as needed, after all - and more having dropped from a superpower to a US client state. France was different, since De Gaulle had preserved a great deal more autonomy for France in the post-WW II era (hence a lot of US hostility). But France was a lot weaker as well, even if it wasn't a US client state. They did, however, hang on to more of their colonies, even in the face of persistent opposition in places like New Caledonia. [1] For sentimental reasons, not particularly well repaid with the manner of the British entry to the EU.
- rhino369 12y ago
  Part of it was that the US signaled after WWII that it would support Western Europe, but it wouldn't help them colonize the world. The British and French were shocked (and pissed) when the US sided with Egypt and the Soviets against European colonialism. The only reason the British didn't suffer a string of horribly embarrassing loses to insurgencies is because the British just gave up after Suez. They would have had their Indochina and Algeria had they tried to keep it all.